Difference in the mode of delivery in obstetric patients who have experienced intimate partner or sexual violence compared to those who have not: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A history of intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or sexual violence may impact a patient's birth experience. Limited information is available on the potential for re‐traumatisation through routine obstetrical practices and the effect on mode of delivery. Objectives To identify whether there is a difference in mode of delivery between obstetrics patients who have experienced IPV/sexual violence compared to those who have not. Search Strategy MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through inception to February 2024 for terms related to obstetric mode of delivery, IPV and sexual abuse. Selection Criteria Peer‐reviewed, retrospective and prospective studies that contained original data. Data Collection and Analysis Two authors independently conducted data extraction. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to pool outcomes. Cochrane's chi‐squared test and the I 2 statistic was used to examine the statistical heterogeneity of pooled effect estimates. All studies were evaluated using the risk of bias in a non‐randomised study‐I tool. Main Results Thirty studies ( n = 280 864) were eligible for inclusion. The likelihood of caesarean delivery was significantly higher in those who had experienced IPV/sexual violence compared to those who had not: OR = 1.16, CI = 1.05–1.27; I 2 = 71. Pooled analysis of reported operative delivery rates did not reveal any significant increase in operative delivery rate for those who had experienced IPV/sexual violence versus those who had not: OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.89–1.45, I 2 = 77%. Risk of bias for the included studies were moderate to serious. Conclusions Obstetrics patients with a history of IPV/sexual violence appear to be more likely to deliver via caesarean section as compared to those who do not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".